Профиль

Eh that'd be a big and costly detour through areas that are already well served by transit. Would be hard to justify vs. enhancing transit service to the west side of the city.

The other option, expropriating a private club, is more righteous. But it would also be expensive and hard. This option would have to be tied to a larger urban renewal type of scheme that builds a lot of housing on this transit oriented golf course, in addition to the railyard.

The golf course idea makes me nervous. At Lincoln Park, a public park, the yard would need to be done with a green roof that ensures no net loss in recreational area. That sounds expensive and hard. It also commits the project to traveling far west down Geary, rather than south down 19th.

I think the Presidio yard location would be optimal. This would allow a shorter, initial line serving the city's densest neighborhoods, and defer tough decisions about the southern/western alignment. But here, time is of the essence, since the facility is slated for reconstruction soon.

The report also considers railyard locations, another important and difficult consideration for new transit projects. It recommends siting the yard on golf course land or making use of the existing Presidio bus yard.

For reference, these are the downtown alignments SF planners have teased. You can see the connection to a second transbay tube and the wider stop spacing.

I tend to like this one. It's the straightest and simplest. Yes, the Market Street transfer at Powell isn't amazing. But there could potentially be a better transfer via a new underground passage connecting this line, Transbay and Embarcadero stations.

Another big consideration will be the line's downtown alignment. This report considers several options, all of which come with tradeoffs. Where to cross Market Street? Transfers to BART, the Central Subway, and the Transbay Terminal?

One of the main reasons for a city-only subway is that it would make possible automated metro trains, which can run more frequently and be built with smaller, cheaper stations. They also create the possibility for more stations spaced closer together.

@infrastructureweak.bsky.social advocates for an SF-only subway, separate from a second transbay tunnel project. Planners currently appear to be leaning in the other direction, pushing for the project to be regional in scope. This is a very important+timely debate!

Very cool project on the Geary Subway from @infrastructureweak.bsky.social, doing the kind of public analysis that gov should be doing. The public ought to be able to understand the tradeoffs of transit planning so they can push politicians to pursue the best ideas. medium.com/@infrastruc...

Unfortunately, this document does not describe the benefits from the Dekalb Interlocking project. That should also make service on the B/D/N/Q/R lines faster and potentially more frequent, but the MTA hasn't published those projections.

The MTA's Nostrand Junction improvements are expected to reduce travel times on this section of the 2/3 and 4/5 by 45-60 seconds and improve reliability for all of the lines' 1.2 million riders. future.mta.info/documents/el...

bsky.app/profile/bens...

I personally take bike share for a lot of trips that would otherwise be by transit, particularly buses. I'm sure I'm not alone. And the Uber/Lyft impact on transit is well-documented. More and better e-micromobility and robotaxis are also big threats.

This is really good. Of all the transit modes that need a "Fair Fares" program the most, commuter rail has to top the list. It's deliberately exclusionary pricing often drives people to take alternate, slower modes.

An entire chapter of my book is devoted to how America spends too much money on highways and is literally destroying itself in the process. I've written several articles about this, too. Transit costs are also a problem. Both things can be true.

Absolutely. It's a very bad situation for transit. But at this moment of rupture, it seems like a good time to strategize and rethink what's working and what's not.

These questions are connected to political strategy. Americans broadly view transit as low-tech because they haven't experienced the huge travel time and quality of life improvements great transit can provide. To build mass support for transit, that'll have to change.

But bringing in some more utilitarianism, more scrutiny on "market fit" in transit planning, could help diffuse conservative attacks on transit as an institution.